rehmwa 2
Recommended Posts
QuoteQuoteI have what should be a simple question. What if a news source just told you what happened, didn't insert their opinion, allowed people from opposing points of view to calmly and respectfully have an exchage of those views......would that be considered "liberal"?
Great question.
Simple answer: no. Not liberal or conservative, just information and opinions from the guests.
Ciels-
Michele
That's what the news is supposed to be (and still is if you look hard enough). It used to be much better. But when you have the news owned by a few large corporations that salso sell you your clothes, food, automobiles, military hardware, entertainment etc. you get what we have today. It's not about getting accurate information to the viewers, it's about making money.
As an aside, I think that FOX News is an oxymoron. There is way too much editorial content for it to be considered a reliable news source. Admittedly, they have gotten a little bit better ever since Bush's poll numbers started to suffer.
skydyvr 0
QuoteAs an aside, I think that FOX News is an oxymoron. There is way too much editorial content for it to be considered a reliable news source.
FOX News CLEARLY segregates and differentiates between straight news and editorial content, as do the other cable news outlets, and they provide some sort of balance between the two. Therefore, just how do editorial broadcasts preclude "reliable" news reporting of the straight kind? Your statement makes ZERO sense.
QuoteAdmittedly, they have gotten a little bit better ever since Bush's poll numbers started to suffer.
How so? What does "a little bit better" mean, or is this just another statement with no sense behind it?
. . =(_8^(1)
Quote
I think you are confusing News reporting with opinionated talk shows. O'Reilly and Hannity & Combs, Keith Oberman, Don Imus etc. do not hold themselves out to be a source of news. They express opinion only and anyone interested in unbiased news would do well to avoid shows like these.
OTOH many people like shows like these because they are interested in different view points.
-
Fox and Friends? Cavuto? Gibson? Fox is running out of room to insert a real news show. And I'll have to disagree that people watch those opinion shows because they want different views, I think they want reinforcement for the views that they already have. The reason that I can't stand them is because of the host's handling of their guests. They cut them off in the middle of a statement, then lead them into straw man arguments, cut off the response and then finish with rant which reinforces their view right before they cut to commercial. That's the sign of someone with a weak argument. It's disrespectful to the guests and does a disservice to the viewers by reducing what should be news to something that resembles propaganda.
skydyvr 0
QuoteFox is running out of room to insert a real news show.
So watch Headline News if you want a "real" news show.
Personally, I find plain news more efficient to read than to watch on TV. But I think most people desire more input than just the "raw" news. Call it entertainment, but it is what it is, and people enjoy it and learn from it, whether it's 60 Minutes or the Factor.
QuoteAnd I'll have to disagree that people watch those opinion shows because they want different views, I think they want reinforcement for the views that they already have.
I suspect you are doing a bit of projecting here. In reality, people watch news shows for lots of different reasons.
. . =(_8^(1)
Quote
Personally, I find plain news more efficient to read than to watch on TV. But I think most people desire more input than just the "raw" news. Call it entertainment, but it is what it is, and people enjoy it and learn from it, whether it's 60 Minutes or the Factor.
Actually, I don't watch very much TV news anymore. I get tired of getting beaten up with the commercials plus I've got a two year old kid. If I had the time I'd probably choose the McNeil/Lehrer News hour for regular news but right now I get most of it off the internet. It's faster because I don't have to wait for the car and truck commercials to end or for the local stations to quit stroking their doppler vs. their competitor's doppler. Hopefully the net will prove to be an equalizer of some sort once it's starts pumping more video content. The only thing that will screw that up will be if this congress puts an end to net neutrality, which looks quite likely.
What was the question again
billvon 3,109
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
I recall a recent study that found FOX viewers had the most misconceptions about world events. Which probably goes along with this poll - people trust news shows that most closely match their preconceptions. That, of course, can become a vicious cycle.
skydyvr 0
QuoteWhat was the question again
I don't know the question, but the answer is 42.
. . =(_8^(1)
QuoteI recall a recent study that found FOX viewers had the most misconceptions about world events. Which probably goes along with this poll - people trust news shows that most closely match their preconceptions. That, of course, can become a vicious cycle.
When people choose to obtain their news from only one source, they set themselves up to be easily manipulated by the people behind the scenes bringing them their news. Case in point, there are a couple of free daily newspapers here in Vancouver BC (I’m not so sure I would even call them newspapers). Most of the time, the news reported in these two free papers is the same news being reported in other sources (and these papers also have entertainment features so they are not all news). But since these papers are free to the public and readily made available at bus stops, train stations and street corners, the publishers get a lot of captive readers and over time the publishers are able to influence the public’s thinking in order to manipulate public policy. Now it just happens that these free papers are very left leaning socialistic views on the world and well it should be no accident then that the people of Vancouver are predominately left leaning socialistic people. Their opinions of the world are formed from the views they read “free of charge” day after day, month after month, year after year.
Fox News is no different. If all you do is watch Fox News you’ll slowly over time start forming the same opinions as the people behind the scenes at Fox and to no surprise, the viewers of Fox tend to be very right leaning socially conservative religious people.
If you want a truly balanced view on your news, you need to obtain your news from many different sources. Then you will be armed with the different views and you’ll be able to formulate your own unbias views on what’s happening in the world. But if people only choose to obtain their news from one source, well don’t be surprised when over time they end up in one camp or the other.
Try not to worry about the things you have no control over
wmw999 2,584
Dunno, Steve -- there are a couple of readily-available free newspapers in Houston that are left-leaning and socialistic, and, well, you'd have to look pretty hard to even find enough neighborhoods that are that way to exceed the fingers on one hand.QuoteTheir opinions of the world are formed from the views they read “free of charge” day after day, month after month, year after year.
Wendy W.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
I can't speak for Houston. Maybe people get a more balanced view there. But ride the bus or train here in Vancouver (the entire city not just one neighborhood) and 90% of the people who are reading some sort newspaper are reading these free publications.
Remember I'm not trying to slam the left or the right. All I'm saying is get your news from more than one source before you start forming opinions on public policy. People are too easily manipulated when they only get one view of the picture.
Try not to worry about the things you have no control over
Remember I'm not trying to slam the left or the right. All I'm saying is get your news from more than one source before you start forming opinions on public policy. People are too easily manipulated when they only get one view of the picture.
Try not to worry about the things you have no control over
wmw999 2,584
Totally agree with you thereQuoteI'm saying is get your news from more than one source before you start forming opinions on public policy.
Wendy W.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
QuoteI recall a recent study that found FOX viewers had the most misconceptions about world events. Which probably goes along with this poll - people trust news shows that most closely match their preconceptions. That, of course, can become a vicious cycle.
ahem....
Fox and the war in Iraq
A year-long study by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA)[8] (http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf) reported that Americans who relied on the Fox News Channel for their coverage of the Iraq war were the most likely to believe misinformation about the war, whatever their political affiliation may be. Those mistaken facts, the study found, increased viewers' support for the war.
The study found that, in general, people who watched Fox News were, more than for other sources, convinced of several untrue propositions which were actively promoted by the Bush administration and the cheerleading media led by Fox, in rallying support for the invasion of Iraq:
(percentages are of all poll respondents, not just Fox watchers)
* 57% believed the falsity that Iraq gave substantial support to Al-Qaida, or was directly involved in the September 11 attacks. (48% after invasion)
* 69% believed the falsity that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11 attacks.
* 22% believed the falsity that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. (21% believed that chem/bio weapons had actually been used against U.S. soldiers in Iraq during 2003)
In the composite analysis of the PIPA study, 80% of Fox news watchers had one of more of these misperceptions; in contrast to 71% for CBS and 27% who tuned to NPR/PBS
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fox_News
Here's a question: If you ask a bunch of people, subjectively, who they trust and they ALL respond with the same answer/person/source does that AUTOMATICALLY mean the source is trustworthy? Could it mean that the source is, perhaps, very persuasive?
/one study says that Fox news watchers were 'convinced of several untrue propositions'. the other study says that Fox news is 'most trusted' by Americans. hmmm, is there another possible conclusion that we can reach? hint: if you persuade someone to believe something, and they truly believe you, when someone else asks that person, "whom do you trust?" how do you think they will respond?
Does whisky count as beer? - Homer
There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner
Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell
There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner
Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell
Andy9o8 2
Here’s a chicken-or-egg to ponder: you’re suggesting all the pinkos in Vanc BC are the result of all the pinko rags. Maybe the pinkos were already there, and the pinko rags simply flourished in the soil. So to speak.
I don't even want to ponder your chicken and egg scenario. My point was to gather your news from multiple sources. To only gather it from one source sets yourself up to be potentially manipulated by the publisher of that news source. Remember the right and left wing media has their own respective agendas and to blindly follow one or the other means you're living in potential ignorance.
Try not to worry about the things you have no control over
Try not to worry about the things you have no control over
skydyvr 0
QuoteI recall a recent study that found FOX viewers had the most misconceptions about world events.
Are you yet again referring back to that ancient 2003 "Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War" report, or is this something new?
. . =(_8^(1)
rehmwa 2
QuoteMy point was to gather your news from multiple sources. To only gather it from one source sets yourself up to be potentially manipulated by the publisher of that news source. Remember the right and left wing media has their own respective agendas and to blindly follow one or the other means you're living in potential ignorance.
and the light of understanding shines from a reasoning human
(the chicken and egg thing is simple as it doesn't matter - certainly pinkos will attract a pinko rag because of market forces. If so, then the point is still true, they enable the ignorance that they desire even further by not seeking out other viewpoints to compare. If the rag is there first and the only source, then that's just indoctrination due to not seeking out contrasting news also. And your point remains true.)
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
QuoteI don't even want to ponder your chicken and egg scenario. My point was to gather your news from multiple sources. To only gather it from one source sets yourself up to be potentially manipulated by the publisher of that news source. Remember the right and left wing media has their own respective agendas and to blindly follow one or the other means you're living in potential ignorance.
The problem is that about a half dozen companies own almost all of the media outlets on earth. Ever wonder why almost all news programs each morning are talking about the exact same handfull of stories?
rehmwa 2
QuoteEver wonder why almost all news programs each morning are talking about the exact same handfull of stories?
Because there is only so many high profile stories in a day?
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
QuoteQuoteEver wonder why almost all news programs each morning are talking about the exact same handfull of stories?
Because there is only so many high profile stories in a day?
because they all have people sitting and reading/watching the AP wire?
Does whisky count as beer? - Homer
There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner
Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell
There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner
Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell
rehmwa 2
QuoteDoes whisky count as beer? - Homer
There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner
You'll have to speak up. I'm wearing a towel - Homer
I have misplaced my pants - Homer
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
"Trusting" the mainstream media is pretty stupid, so what the article is really saying is that people who watch FOX News are considerably more likely to be stupid than people who get their news from any particular broadcast network. 
Blues,
Dave
Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
I think this is the main point. And note that Britain can access other news providers while many Egyptians have little choice. I wonder how trusted Pravda was to their users......
Without competition between networks, the public becomes very trusting of the news providers. And this is likely not a very good thing except for those that control the media.
Fox is certainly not 'balanced' if they stood alone without competition. But they certainly do provided "balancing" to the overall reporting of news considering the alternatives. Especially when people consider the other networks to all be some form of "chocolate". When all you get is chocolate every day, having a choice of strawberry provides balance. But without a little bit of strawberry once in a while, you start to just accept that chocolate is the norm.
I like the flavor analogy - news bias, like tastes, really is just a set of subjective preferences, not really right or wrong, just what people want - it's marketing, not substance.
I'd submit that:
1) we can't trust any form of enterprise to keep bias away.
2) as such, I'd rather see several networks with various biased be in place rather than a restricted set of choices.
as such, the American news is fairly healthy with both subtle and blatant biasing being balanced by competing networks for viewers to compare. Again, the market drove a good solution. Or at least one we can work with.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites